Do right and wrong exist?
 

Do right and wrong exist? I beleive the obvious answer to this question is yes, and I think that most people who disagree have not logically considered the question. If right and wrong do not exist, you cannot strive to be a "better" person, strive for a "better" society, or make a "better" life for yourself. The word "better" means a striving towards the right, working away from what is wrong. In other words: progress, which, consequently cannot exist without right or wrong. I say all this for this reason: most people I talk to who do not beleive in right or wrong base their "moral" judments on what benifits society. So what would benifit society, what would be.....GOOD for it? It's not language that traps you, it's logic. What do you use to justify any action if there is no right or wrong? What would make you choose one option over another? If you take emotion out of the equation (for rage, love, and depression often interfere with logical decision making) and say that right and wrong do not exist, then choice does not exist! Your desicions are the consequences of the movement of atoms and particles, you have no control! It's all cause and effect. Even selfish decisions admit the existance of right or wrong because your decision is based off the pursuit of what is "best" for you.

This is an exciting question.
As someone who has always has to resist the urge to nihilism, I will try to argue with you.

The question is not whether right and wrong exist in a tangible way to each individual person, or even in a systemic, shared way throughout a society or culture. The question is whether there is a right and wrong that exists immutibly and independent of the human experience. Is there a sense that my right and wrong can be held superior to someone else's contradictory sense of right and wrong?

I don't think that abortion is always morally wrong, but plenty of people not only think I'm incorrect, but that my opinion there is reprehensible. There is plenty of moral debate on this subject (and on plenty of similarly difficult questions) but my opinion is that neither side can ever be proven to be absolutely correct. Every moral argument is always based on some fundamental premise or assumption, and these assumptions invariably spring from some deeply felt conception of "right and wrong" that can neither be proved or disproved. It is prior to logic. In what sense does that right and wrong exist independent of the people who believe in it? At any rate, I accept that your argument shows that everyone but the craziest psychopath lives their lives under a moral principle guided by a private conception of right and wrong.

Books could be written on this subject. Tis truly subjective. Based on what I know, I have determined there are, but I do not claim to be wise enough to determine what they all are.

I believe there are no real right and wrong.

Right and wrong are subjective, and I have my own little set of rules. But I don't see them as ultimate rules, just what I, based upon my way of thinking and experiences in life, feel suits my values best.

there is no ultimate right and wrong, but there are personal rights and wrongs. just like we all create our own perception of this world, we create our own way of thinking, and our own definition of what we feel is right.. and what we feel is wrong. but there is no true and absolute way that tells us what is the real right and what is the real wrong. its up to the individual, but we just need a point to start when we create a society, and ofcorse everyone will never be happy... because we are just so damn different.. our individuality is our gift, and our curse. so in the eyes of my oppinion, there will never be justice for everyone.. if justice is doing what you want and feel is right... and when everyone has made up their own little minde and created their own little thoughts about what that really is right and wrong.. then we will allways feel different, at some point.. then we will allways dissagree, somewhere down the road.

Right and Wrong are in the eye of the beholder.

There is no ultimate guide, in my opinion.

Wouldn't you agree that there are at least SOME definite rights and wrongs? If I come up to you and punch you in the face, is that right or wrong? If I cut in front of you in the movie line, is that right or wrong? If I rape an 8-year old girl, is that right or wrong? I believe that there is a common moral code. And I believe that we could not have a common moral code if it was not for an ultimate guide.

I think an individual has proven to themselves what benefits or detriments their own lives, either through instinctual reactions or through social experimentation, and those are their right or wrong, respectfully. Although I don't believe that for all people, I see that as a pretty good definition for the majority. The remainder believe the exact opposite for fear of conformity.

I believe subjectively there is a right and wrong, but not objectively. Objectively there is just choice, or different directions to go.

Imbued in every “right” choice carries with it the seeds of “evil.” For example Jonnymysto, I choose not to rape women of any age because I morally (subjectively) believe rape to be “wrong.” Yet my choice deprives quite a few hospital staff, mental health care workers, police detectives, lawyers, judges, and prison guards from employment. These people’s jobs are important to the national economy and according our (corporate) politicians, the economy is essential to our national security. There are many people that believe anything that impedes the stimulating the economy or hampers national security is “wrong.” If that feels far fetched, how about all the potential effects a sexual assault might create for the person raped, like greater compassion for other victims or a stronger pull for personal safety which keeps her from life threatening danger.

The only thing I can do is act from my own sense of morality, and let go of the absolute of that morality. And of course, I don’t use the above argument to justify actions that I might want to take but know to be wrong.

I'm convinced there has to be...

Excerpted from "Wishful Thinking" by Fredrick Buechner...

"Who needs a Divine Judge and Cosmic Law? We can learn to live in the lower case.

Except sometimes. Sometimes its' almost as hard to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does. I don't mean a baby's smile....[or]... the beauty of nature. I mean an atheist is about as likely as anybody else to walk in to a newsstand someday and pick up a copy of National Enquirer or some such. On the front page is a picture of a dead child. The bare back is covered with welts. The eyes are swollen shut. Both arms are broken. The full story is on page 3 if you have the stomach for it.

To be consistent with his creed, an atheist can say no more than to beat a child to death is wrong with a small w. Wrong because it is cruel, ugly, inhumane, pointless, illegal and makes the gorge rise. But what is apt to rise with the gorge is the suspicion that it is wrong also with a capital W, the suspicion that the law that has been broken here is not just a human law, but a law as immutable as the law of gravity, one by which even if there were not children in the universe, and no men to beat them, it would be written in to the very fabric of reality itself that such as act is wrong."

Ok, lots to say i guess. Firstly, I need to commend chavos for his comments, but that might just be because i agree with them. A lot of what you said reminds me of C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. I beleive that there is a definate and concrete system of morals, Right and Wrong. For to say there is no concrete system, but a completely subjective, interpretive, and wholy opinionated system of ethics would infer that any discussion of right or wrong would be utterly useless. You could not say "The Nazi's were wrong for killing the Jews" unless you concluded by "in my own mind and personal views." Which the other person could only respond by saying what morally existed in their own mind, and if it so happened to differ with yours, all you could say would be "OK". Any dispute on ethical grounds would be pointless because would be no common ground on which the two parties could stand. What then seems to inevitably follow from this, is that our morals and search for truth (for truth would be right and falsity, wrong) is completely void. We would hence be determining personal truths based on what made us most comfortable or "functionable" in society. And I beleive that if that is all our search for truth is, we are not in fact finding any truth but a well developed form of complacency and ignorence.

Here is where religion comes in handy, for how to live you may not know, but ah...the prophet knows!

Right and wrong exist in as much as any abstract concepts 'exist'. Unfortunately they canot be pinned down because . . like love, hate and jealousy . . they vary from person to person.

I think it's important to distinguish between absolute right and wrong (like somehow there's a code that exists outside of human consciousness) and right and wrong as ethical concepts. Of course the concept of right and wrong is inescapable, but what is defined as right and wrong at any given time in a given situation is subject to exception and to change.

Look at it this way:

Is killing wrong? Most people would say "yes" automatically, assuming this is an absolute wrong.

What if you're killing someone who threatens your life?
Or killing an animal to eat it?
Or an animal killing another animal?
So there's an exception to this absolute...it's wrong to kill except when your life depends on it in some way.

What about speaking against your country's leaders? Used to be punishable by death (Henry VIII, Stalin, etc.) Times change, contexts change.

I think there are a few things that are codified as near-absolute wrongs because they jeopardize our ability to live in a social setting. It's wrong to harm another person, unless (in some cases) it's to redress/prevent further or greater harm. Incest is wrong because it jeopardizes the gene pool.

I think it's a little naive, or perhaps arrogant, to assume that any culture has access to knowledge of absolute right and wrong. Some subjectivity is necessary for change, and recognizing that right and wrong are sometimes subjective is necessary to negotiate a complex world.

very true, lurkette. While i posit that there is a absolute morality, i don't presume to say that i know it with out flaw. I believe that as a civilization we've captured much of it, and there are religious texts that reflect it, but that it is not known in its entirety to humankind.